DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_marg]

This has been one of my biggest obstacles in reconstructing a plausible scenerio for the beginings of Mormonism --
how to explain any sort of conspiracy. Even in the most simple and logical conspiracy (say Joseph and Hyrum, or
Joseph and Alvin, or Joseph and Mother Lucy), there must be the element present of two or more people agreeing to
tell lies as holy truths.

I don't see a significant problem. Some families don't view lying as all that terrible. Just to throw out a scenario, isn't there a newspaper account of Rigdon (Rangdon) being fetched from Ohio to help Smith and company with treasure seeking. I could envision Smith saying to Rigdon "how did you become a preacher? and then perhaps mentioning his mom's brother had started up a religious communal group in Canada. From there Rigdon might mention he'd like to set up his own church and he might mention he's been working on a book similar to the Bible to help as a selling feature. And then Smith might add he'd help sell it if he could share in the profits. The rest of the people which is essentially 2 families are informed of it over time. Smith demonstrated his ability to sell questionable unethical notions.

Even if all of the conspirators believe what they are doing is for a good purpose -- even if they are very deluded, or
are hallucinating, or believe they are blessed with spiritual gifts -- there still remains the problem of getting people to
agree to do things in secret that they must deny ever having done, when they are out in public.

Well they weren't completely consistent throughout their lives with their stories but just the same the storyline is not difficult. Instead of a manuscript they need only say that Smith dictated from his head in a hat and read letters to form words. Their statements are not very detailed. And didn't Rigdon have a lawyer friend who claimed Rigdon told him he was behind the Book of Mormon or religious group. That was in Vanick's book. The others in theory involved per my suggestion may have only envisioned sales of the Book of Mormon ..never religious group which would take hold. Once they had made their statements ..at what point do they retract. And it they do retract, how does that benefit them. Wouldn't they expose their families and themselves to public humiliation?

In some ways Joseph Smith was able to accomplish this with secret polygamy, or with the Danites, or with the Council
of Fifty --- but each one of those secret schemes was eventually exposed. Yes, many people were induced to tell holy
lies in public to cover up secret activities ar Far West and Nauvoo -- but the secret always leaked out eventually.

For this reason I cannot accept a conspiracy of 12 or 13 persons in the origin of Mormonism. I can, however, accept a
compartmentalization of secrecy -- much as goes on in national security agencies with different levels of security
clearances. In such a scenerio, the lower levels of the 12 or 13 conspirators only told an occasional lie and had very
little of substance that they could reveal about "Mormon secrets."

But how do you explain the head in the hat process? The 2 families were exposed to the process which went on regularly in their homes. A manuscript would be next to impossible for Smith to conceal and then read from while his head is in a hat. Now the families, and harris may not have known who did write the manuscript, Smith may have claimed credit for that and he may have even claimed it was God inspired but that he needed a way to prove this to people...he'd ask for their help. So they may have believed it was a god inspired piece of work.

At the inner core of this compartmentalized secrecy would be two or three (at most four) people who knew that much
of what they were doing was fraudulent on some level. Perhaps they felt their efforts to bring forth a new church were
less fraudulent than "apostate Christianity" and that they were at least the best of all fraudulent religions in the world.

Agreed.

I think both men were "true believers" in certain aspects of their religion and of "the Restoration," but how they could
have ever joined such supernatural beliefs or delusions or paranormal experiences into a church-founding conspiracy,
still eludes my grasp.

I don't think Smith believed in an interfering God ,so he had no fear from a God. I don't know about Rigdon, I suspect he did believe in an interfering Christian God. But I based this on little knowledge.

[_Dr. Shades]

Dale:

Didn't Vanick et. al. provide adequate answers to all of those questions in their recent book?

[_why me]

[MODERATOR POST:

why me, I respectfully request that if you want to discuss whether the Book of Mormon is or isn't true, or how/why Joseph could or couldn't have written it himself, that you start a new thread on the topic.

Please, let's preserve this thread for discussion of the Spalding/Rigdon Theory only.

Thanks in advance!]

I can understand the red letters here. But we must also understand that dan made a statement that Joseph Smith did write the book as a final confirmation of truth. And his conclusion can be debatable. In this thread two theories have been introduced. Dan's and Dale's. Both seem to contradict the other. Also, some people are using their imagination and trying to come to terms with the 11 witnesses and attempting to speculate on their possible lies or secrecy and so, imagination does play a role in constructing a feel for that time and attempting to place oneself in the picture. And it has been rather difficult to imagine 11 people holding their tongue for such a length of time but speculations are offered.

Now, what will happen when this thread dies, and no conclusion will be apparent? And this will happen. Can there be a third possibility?

But I agree with you. Let dale and dan have it out and hopefully, we can all move on to a possible third theory with a new thread. Or still reflect on those possibilities offered by dan and dale.

I am not challenging you here at all and I respect what you just wrote.

[_avanick]

Hi Dan,
I have to keep this short as I'm on a deadline, but I'll reply to at least some of the points.

Hi Art,

Thanks for including me on the 1977 edition, which has turned into a bit of a collector's item, I guess, but all I did was some of the more tedious research on the first book as, well as help to procure one or more of the handwriting experts. By the way, there is a huge story just in the saga of the handwriting experts and their findings. I'll leave it alone except to say that not only did all three experts state the the unidentified scribe writing was Spalding's, one of them later on, when shown some unknown handwriting in a completely unrelated book, the Cowdery family genealogy, stated quite plainly that it was Spalding's, and then asked Wayne why Spalding's handwriting was in the Cowdery family genealogy. Any ideas?

So much for handwriting experts. It's difficult to make judgments without access to originals.

The thing is, at least two of the experts DID see the originals, and the second expert was already so familiar with the pages that when the archive person brought out the wrong pages, for whatever reason, the expert told him to take them back and bring out the correct pages.

It is also easier if one is choosing among handwritings of known participants. Handwriting analysis is not a perfect science. I can't remember if the experts were trained in nineteenth century handwriting or not. I'm not a handwriting expert, but I challenged Dean Jessee's identification of John Whitmer's handwriting in the original Book of Mormon MS in 1 Nephi and convinced Brent Metcalfe not to use that argument in his Mosiah-first essay. In fairness, Jessee did put "John Whitmer?" But it was a stretch. Now, that possibility has been abandoned by Royal Skousen, and we now have two unknown scribes. Of course, you are no doubt aware that your unknown scribe also authored one of Joseph Smith's revelations, which makes identifying it with Spaulding quite impossible. Still, the idea that some pages from Spaulding's MS had been slipped into the Book of Mormon MS was quite preposterous to begin with.

To say the the idea is preposterous is an assumption, and a dangerous one at that, especially when none of us know the entire story.

The idea for the 2005 book was mine, and I approached Davis and Cowdrey in 1993, telling them that we needed to bring the book back before the public eye, and to answer the many questions that arose over the years. In 2005, the new book became a reality, and the only similarity between the old book and the new one, besides both of them speaking about the Spalding authorship claims, was the title. Outside of that, the two books are considerably different. There is far more evidence in the new book, in spite of what Mr. Roper, or rather he and the people who helped him, say to the contrary, even though not nearly so sensational as with the handwriting issue, which also in spite of what many have said, is far from being dead. Ever wonder why such a tight lid has been put on access to the unidentified scribe pages? Perhaps someone else someday can resolve that mystery.

Hearing that the book has dramatically change is certainly encouraging. I'm not sure what you mean by tight lid on the unidentified pages.

What I meant is that ever since our little visits, access to those pages has been extremely limited, and not because of the condition of the pages. It makes me think that perhaps someone has something to hide, but I could be wrong.

The original MS is quite fragile and for the most part unreadable without infrared light. In fact, the infrared photos are preferable to use. Skousen took great pains to identify all the handwritings, but was unsuccessful in identifying two scribes, largely due to the lack of handwriting samples of the Whitmers. Both John and Christian Whitmer are said to have acted as scribes, but so far can't be linked to either unidentified scribe.

I wouldn't say that this is a reckless discussion or half-assed, just restricted perhaps.

Watch out for my dry sense of humor.

I said this based on my understanding of early Mormon sources and a reconstruction of early Mormon history, which seems to exclude the Spaulding theory. I said it flourished in Joseph Smith's day among non-Mormons who could not have assessed it validity because they did not know the circumstances surrounding the production of the Book of Mormon. To those who did know the facts--such as Cowdery, Harris, Emma, the Whitmers--the theory did not make any sense and was a mere annoyance. It is my opinion and experience that many (not all) advocates of the Spaulding theory are similarly uninformed about both early Mormon history and the contents of the Book of Mormon. This also includes a lot of Mormons. And when Mormons become former Mormons, it does not necessarily mean they have gained a good understanding of their former faith. So, I did not intend for my general comments to apply to every particular circumstance--that would be a fallacy.

My friend, here is where faith and such come into play. When people are convinced in their hearts that something is not right, they don't necessarily need to know the history or validity of every jot and tittle of something to believe it true or false, so understanding can be a relative term here. I'm also not surprised that Spalding is left out of early Mormon history, though one could suggest that Spalding is a necessity when doing a proper study of said history. Once again, our new book is quite a different animal than its predecessor and should be considered on its merits without being compared to the earlier edition.

I'm not sure what you mean here. But I would like to see an acknowledgment that the multiple testimony of Joseph Smith's method of dictation is a major hurdle for the Spalding theory.

Not at all, as I said in another post.

We have never made the claim that our book "proves" that Spalding wrote the basis for the Book of Mormon. What we have said, is that we are offering an equally plausible, if not more so, explanation for how the Book of Mormon really came into being. Once again, I have to strongly suggest that you read our book rather than just parse out what may appear to be good arguments made by Roper et all. Without a doubt we have amassed a mountain of circumstantial evidence in support of our claims, but at the same time, it takes more than just circumstantial evidence to "prove" something, but we have not made that claim. However, I would put this question to you: how much evidence will be enough? How much testimony will it take? how many early documents will it take to finally "prove" the case, one way or the other? Who will make that determination?

No response to Roper? I take it that you generally agree with his criticism, but because you are not trying to "prove" your case you are allowed to exaggerate the significance of your evidence. It seems to me you have verified Eichbaum's statement as having factual basis, but her statement still has questionable relevance to the Spalding theory.

We're in process of producing a response to Roper, but I hardly think his opinions are in any way devastating to our book. That being said, discussing our book with you is somewhat pointless when all you have for reference is what Roper (and whoever worked with him, I'm supposing) said in his review. That's almost like taking our work out of context. I'm sure that copies of our book are available to you, so why not just take a look for yourself? I feel a bit like Dale in this regard. We did our homework, took 12 years to do it, and yet many people who haven't even looked at our work ask us to explain all kinds of things and make all kinds of statements without ever reading what we actually said.

I'm not sure what you mean by "equally plausible"--"equally plausible" to what? The less cumbersome, less circumstantial, less speculative Joseph Smith as sole author theory? You might regard the Spalding theory as "plausible", but I regard the Joseph Smith as sole-author theory to be probable. Plausible isn't saying much. Any false theory has plausibility. If I were in court, I would hope my attorney has more than a plausible defense. Speculations about Big Foot are plausible, but not probable.

Okay, let's use the word probable, as what we have outlined in our book is easily as probable, or possible, as anything the church has put forth.

It seems to me that you are arguing that Rigdon had opportunity to commit a crime that can't be proven has occurred. Nor can you demonstrate that Rigdon had access to a manuscript you can't prove even existed.

Nor can you even come close to proving that metal plates ever existed.

I would submit to you that the Mormons cannot have it two different ways either. Obviously the manuscript that was found in Hawaii was Manuscript Story, not Manuscript Found, even though it was given that name later on, perhaps as wishful thinking. Yet discussions have included both names over the years. So then if there was only one manuscript, then it was/is Manuscript Story, and Manuscript Found doesn't exist, unless it is indeed the second manuscript, the one which Solomon Spalding did indeed submit to a print shop in Pittsburgh. The point of contention then becomes whether that manuscript later became the basis for the Book of Mormon.

Can you establish that the two titles are definitely different MSS? Are you sure Manuscript Found wasn't inadvertently given by witnesses because Manuscript Story is about a manuscript found? It's always possible that Spalding retitled his MS before submitting it to the printer. But, then, why would the basis for the Book of Mormon be titled "Manuscript Found" when there are no manuscripts mentioned in the book, but rather metal plates? Lots of metal plates, but not one MS--odd, don't you think?

Read our book.

On the matter of the two-MS theory, I think Roper's discussion of the 1839 letter of Solomon's widow, Matilda Spalding Davidson, that appeared in the Boston Recorder, is devastating, unless you can come up with a good response. Roper discusses and quotes from this Davidson's letter:

Roper has made several mistakes in his review, all of which will be shown in the response which we will make public when it is finished. As far as we can see, he does some pretty good tap dancing around evidence but we don't see anything devastating, to use your word. Once again, without actually looking at what we wrote, how can you make your statements?

Howe's suspicious behavior. On 19 April 1839, a letter appeared in the Boston Recorder over the name of Matilda Spalding Davison, widow of Solomon Spalding. Davison recounted memories of her late husband, his deteriorating health, and his work on a story called "Manuscript Found." She said that while they lived in Pittsburgh, her husband had taken the manuscript to the office of a Mr. Patterson, a printer, who suggested that if Spalding made revisions and polished the tale, he might consider it for publication. Davison claimed that Sidney Rigdon, who she thought was associated with the printer, must have made a copy of the manuscript. However, "At length the manuscript was returned to its author, and soon after we removed to Amity, Washington county, Pa., where Mr. S. deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my hands and was carefully preserved."[78] Later, she said, when a Mormon preacher visited the Spaldings' former neighborhood in Pennsylvania and read from the Book of Mormon, residents of the town, including Spalding's brother John, recognized her husband's writings in the Book of Mormon and suspected fraud.

"The excitement in New Salem became so great, that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr. Philastus Hurlbut, one of their number to repair to this place and to obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding, for the purpose of comparing it with the Mormon Bible, to satisfy their own minds and to prevent their friends from embracing an error so delusive. This was in the year 1834. Dr. Hurlbut brought with him an introduction and request for the manuscript, signed by Messrs. Henry Lake, Aaron Wright and others, with all whom I was acquainted, as they were my neighbors, when I resided in New Salem."[79]

Since 1839 Latter-day Saint critics of the Spalding theory have noted irregularities in how the Davison statement was prepared and presented to the press, sometimes attempting to show that enemies of the church falsified the widow's testimony. However, Cowdrey, Davis, and Vanick correctly observe that while she did not draft the statement, the elderly widow had apparently given tacit approval for the statement. More significant, in my view, is the information the widow's statement reveals about Hurlbut, Howe, and the Spalding manuscript itself. Davison identified the manuscript entrusted to Hurlbut as "Manuscript Found." It was the same manuscript that Spalding took to the printer in Pittsburgh and that ended up in the widow's trunk in New York, from which it was retrieved by Hurlbut. This information seems to contradict the earlier claim of Howe and of Spalding's Conneaut neighbors that "Manuscript Story" was not the same as "Manuscript Found." Upon reading the Davison statement, one non-Mormon observer noted that the statement stopped short of providing a most important piece of information:

"The writer does not tell us, whether the manuscript was sent to New Salem—whether it was compared with the Mormon Bible, what was the result of that comparison, or where it may now be found, and in what manner these facts can be proved, other than by her attested statements! . . . And again, what became of the manuscript? It had just been proved to be an important document, and it surely could not have been wantonly destroyed? if still in existence can it not be produced to corroborate the statements of Mrs Davison?"[80]

Parley P. Pratt pointed out that

"the statement does not say whether he [Hurlbut] obtained the manuscript ["Manuscript Found"], but still leaves the impression that he did, and that it was compared with the Book of Mormon. Now whoever will read the work got up by said Hurlburt, entitled "Mormonism Unveiled," will find that he there states that the said manuscript of Spaulding's romance was lost and could no where be found. But the widow is here made to say that it is carefully preserved. Here seems to be some knavery or crooked work. . . . Now if there is such a manuscript in existence, let it come forward at once, and not be kept in the dark."[81]

------------------------------------

[79] Davison, "Origin of the 'Book of Mormon.'"

[80] C., "For the Register and Observer," Christian Register and Boston Observer (11 May 1839), emphasis added.

[81] Parley P. Pratt, letter to the editor of the New Era, 27 November 1839, in Weekly Democratic Republican New Era and American Courier (between 27 November and early December 1839), emphasis added; reprinted in the Times and Seasons 1/3 (January 1840): 46.

--------------------------------------

--Matthew Roper, The Mythical "Manuscript Found", FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 29-31.

Roper's full discussion of Howe's coverup is quite stunning. It can be read at the link below:


http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=584

Moreover, even if one accepts your two-MS theory, why should we assume the MS at the printing office was the hypothesized proto-BOM MS and not the Oberlin MS, or a version of it? Certainly, you must know that this new evidence only becomes significant if one allows a lot of other "ifs".

No, the only way it doesn't become significant is if the testimony of the Conneaut witnesses and others are impeached, and contrary to Brodie and those who would hide behind her book, that is simply not the case. That is why Eichbaum and others are attacked, because if their testimony is somehow impeached, it goes a long way toward destroying the Spalding claims. Once again, we discuss this in our book. Many libraries have copies of our book. While Brodie clearly has valid points in other areas, she is wrong about the Conneaut witnesses.

I think the best explanation of the Conneaut witnesses comes from the study of Elizabeth Loftus on planted memories and false memories.

I think that it is wishful thinking on your part and everyone else who wishes that the Conneaut witnesses and others would simply vanish. In the end, it doesn't really matter what either of us thinks, just the facts. I can't remember how many times our story wandered one way and then another, before it finally started taking shape. We didn't go into this book with any preconceived notions, or at least we tried our best in that respect. We let the evidence lead us where it would, and are proud of what has been accomplished, but it is just the beginning, we hope.

Elizabeth F. Loftus, "Creating False Memories," Scientific American 277 (Sept. 1997): 70-75.

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

Loftus, Elizabeth (1996) Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 24 (3) 281-295.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5JAnx3OZI-cJ:cogprints.org/599/00/199802009.html+&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

Michael H. Brown, "False-Memory Syndrome."

http://www.gospa.org/pl/pages/articles/catholic-news.html?ra=1;id=111

Perhaps we should. The problem as I see it is that Holley's limited geography isn't consistent with the Book of Mormon. I also think saying Holley's geography is "consistent" with Spaulding's regional history is an overstatement since there is nothing that specifically in Spaulding's writings to either confirm or disqualify Holley's geography. Holley is trying to offer a limited geography that fits the Book of Mormon on the assumption that Spaulding wrote the Book of Mormon. His geography can't be used to prove what it assumes--that would be begging the question.

Perhaps not, but then aren't you making the assumption that Holley is wrong, based on the assumption that the Spalding authorship claims are wrong? From what I have seen of Holley's work, I find it to be another link in the ever-growing chain of evidence which may someday show that Spalding did in fact write the basis for the Book of Mormon.

I'm supposed to assume it's wrong since Holley has the burden of proof. However, as I said, Holley's geography has to demonstrate that it fits Book of Mormon geography better than with hemispheric geography does. However, even if Holley's fit better, what relevance would that have for the Spalding theory? Spalding favored local Indian legends, but would he have given such elaborate geography descriptions in his book and would it be that geography? Seems like another remote speculation that is pointless since hemispheric geography is the best fit.

As I said before, making assumptions is a dangerous business, especially when one starts off by just assuming something, whether there are any facts to justify it or not.

I do not say that he wrote the Book of Mormon, as there are clearly many parts which bear the unmistakable stamp of Sidney Rigdon and his religious views. That is a whole side topic all by itself.

Really? Many of the major elements are Christian Primitivism and Religious Seeker concepts, which Joseph Smith was exposed to in his own home. Joseph Smith was certainly exposed to revivalism, Arminianism, Calvinism, and Unitarian-Universalism. The Book of Mormon is preoccupied with Unitarian-Universalism, but was Rigdon? Campbellites rejected the term Holy Ghost, and preferred the term Holy Spirit. Rigdon was likely a binitarian, but the Book of Mormon fails to distinguish between the Father and Son. If Rigdon had been the author of the theological portions of the Book of Mormon, one would have expected a much more pronounced restorationism. The term "restoration" appears in discussions of resurrection and salvation, but not in terms of the gospel and church.

Check it out, and you will more than likely find Unitarianism in one form or another in Rigdon's past, as it was also in the "closet" of others in the early church.

by the way, thanks for participating, Art.

Thanks for discussing things with me. When I joined this forum, I felt like I had really jumped into the "deep end" of the pool, so bear with me if I'm not as polished as you and Dale. I'm a relatively new kid on the block, research-wise, compared to you two.

Art

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale:

Didn't Vanick et. al. provide adequate answers to all of those questions in their recent book?

Is that a "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of question?
I mean the inclusion of the ALL ...?

If ALL questions have been answered adequately, then we need not have this continuing discussion.

In Science, a reporter publishes his/her findings and waits for other scientists to either duplicate those
findings, or to refute them, or to present new findings which enlarge our scope of knowledge.

My feelings about Art and his friends is that they are open to the uncovering of new evidence which
might accomplish any one (or two, or three) of those serious responses. At least I hope that's the case.

A number of months back, Art and I sat in a Burger King in California, with him almost at the point of
tears, trying to comprehend my harsh criticism of his book. But as time has passed, I think Art has come
to realize that my reaction was that of a loving brother who wants to see him get an A+ instead of an A-
for his accomplishments.

Art's book is a massive step in the right direction, to my way of thinking --- for one thing, it brings together
between two covers, most of the important source material realting to the Spalding authorship claims. At
least folks like our own Dan Vogel can purchase an entire library of ESD (early Spalding documents) for
a few bucks, and not have to chase all of that obscure stuff down on their own.

Art and friends admit that much of their "connecting explanations" for all of those bits and pieces consist of
deduction, or selective interpretation, or even speculative reconstructions. Thus, the links between their
many chains of evidence are naturally the potential weak spots in the book. The content of some of the evidence
they have accepted may also one day be admitted to be problematic.

But I think that the chains of evidence they have put together are impressive ones -- ones which offer at least
provisionally "adequate answers" to SOME of the questions we should be talking about. Even if a weak link
can be broken, here or there, in these guys' presentation, I believe that long segments of the "chain" will firmly
hold together. Nobody else has even come close to accomplishing that feat, since Schroeder's 1901 booklet.

Their Cowdery link is very interesting but also very speculative and potentially a weak one. Their Rigdon link is
very fragmentary and cannot hold together without much more supporting evidence being drawn together. Their
textual links are almost non-existent. Their Hurlbut link needs a lot of work.

But, as I said, even if these links come apart, major segments of the chain remain -- and those segments can
probably be re-assembled into a stronger chain of evidence, once the weak links are strengthened.

That's my overview --- please do not ask me to get into endless speculation upon their speculation. We need
additional primary and secondary evidence, not arguments back and forth over fragmentary evidence.

Dale

[_avanick]

Hi Dale,
Just a couple of quick comments and the rest I'll more or less agree with. As I've said at least once in this thread, as well as to you, we never made the claim to have all of the answers, but like you said, we have assembled what we believe to be a big step in the right direction as fas as explaining how the Book of Mormon came into being. Yes, I was a bit irritated with one of your reviews, as were all of us on our team, but I was not almost in tears. I know that is a minor point, but one I felt needed to be mentioned.

Our book, we hope, will serve as a starting point for those who are interested in the topic, as well as for those who might have not pursued it because they didn't feel they had anything to offer, or who might have been afraid to say anything because of being somehow intimidated. The book has broken some new ground, I believe, and we stand behind it. Yes, there are some weak links, to use your term, and we freely admit it. Do we go out on a limb in some places? Probably, but not without some good reason. Research goes on, however, and we're confident that more answers, stronger links, if you will, will result.

Art

Dale:

Didn't Vanick et. al. provide adequate answers to all of those questions in their recent book?

Is that a "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of question?
I mean the inclusion of the ALL ...?

If ALL questions have been answered adequately, then we need not have this continuing discussion.

In Science, a reporter publishes his/her findings and waits for other scientists to either duplicate those
findings, or to refute them, or to present new findings which enlarge our scope of knowledge.

My feelings about Art and his friends is that they are open to the uncovering of new evidence which
might accomplish any one (or two, or three) of those serious responses. At least I hope that's the case.

A number of months back, Art and I sat in a Burger King in California, with him almost at the point of
tears, trying to comprehend my harsh criticism of his book. But as time has passed, I think Art has come
to realize that my reaction was that of a loving brother who wants to see him get an A+ instead of an A-
for his accomplishments.

Art's book is a massive step in the right direction, to my way of thinking --- for one thing, it brings together
between two covers, most of the important source material realting to the Spalding authorship claims. At
least folks like our own Dan Vogel can purchase an entire library of ESD (early Spalding documents) for
a few bucks, and not have to chase all of that obscure stuff down on their own.

Art and friends admit that much of their "connecting explanations" for all of those bits and pieces consist of
deduction, or selective interpretation, or even speculative reconstructions. Thus, the links between their
many chains of evidence are naturally the potential weak spots in the book. The content of some of the evidence
they have accepted may also one day be admitted to be problematic.

But I think that the chains of evidence they have put together are impressive ones -- ones which offer at least
provisionally "adequate answers" to SOME of the questions we should be talking about. Even if a weak link
can be broken, here or there, in these guys' presentation, I believe that long segments of the "chain" will firmly
hold together. Nobody else has even come close to accomplishing that feat, since Schroeder's 1901 booklet.

Their Cowdery link is very interesting but also very speculative and potentially a weak one. Their Rigdon link is
very fragmentary and cannot hold together without much more supporting evidence being drawn together. Their
textual links are almost non-existent. Their Hurlbut link needs a lot of work.

But, as I said, even if these links come apart, major segments of the chain remain -- and those segments can
probably be re-assembled into a stronger chain of evidence, once the weak links are strengthened.

That's my overview --- please do not ask me to get into endless speculation upon their speculation. We need
additional primary and secondary evidence, not arguments back and forth over fragmentary evidence.

Dale

[_wenglund]

Hi Dan,

What do you and Brent Metcalfe think of the alleged thematic and phraseology parallels between the Book of Mormon and the extant Spalding manuscript that Dale has researched? (I would have thought this would have been the area of most interest to you given the similarity in subjectmatter of "New Approaches")

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Uncle Dale]

But how do you explain the head in the hat process?...

Wish I could -- it might help if I could see somebody performing the same activities today. All I have to work
with are reports of what people SAY they witnessed. Go to a David Copperfield stage show in Las Vegas,
where he makes a full-grown tiger disappear in front of an audience of hundreds -- then take down their
accounts of what they SAY that they SAW. Will you then have a reliable explanation for what DID happen?

Take William Riley Hine's recollections of being in the Harmony area in 1829:

"I learned that Jo claimed to be translating the plates in Badger's Tavern,
in Colesville, three miles from my house. I went there and saw Jo Smith
sit by a table and put a handkerchief to his forehead and peek into his hat
and call out a word to Cowdery, who sat at the same table and wrote it
down. Several persons sat near the same table and there was no curtain
between them."

What should I do with such a recollection? Add it to the faith-promoting Mormon accounts? Or throw it away
as having come from an anti-Mormon source? Or try to discover something more from an independent source?

Did Joseph Smith have his head buried deep within his hat for hours at a time? Did he occasionally take
his head out of the hat and look around him? Did he make use of the hat in every single instance in which
a Book of Mormon sentence was written down on paper by Cowdery? Did he and Cowdery really do such
things at Badger's Tavern, as Riley recounts? If so, why? To what effect?

David Copperfield and the disappearing tiger keep coming to my mind -- I can't say why.

Dale

[_wenglund]

Hi Art,

I am pleased to see you join this discussion.

Partial support for Eichbaum's statement has been found in a list of unclaimed letters that had been held at the Pittsburgh post office for more than thirty days. Such lists were compiled and published in several newspapers. After surveying a list of such letters in the Commonwealth and Statesmen newspapers, Cowdrey, Vanick, and Davis located references to letters being held for several persons of interest, including Solomon Spalding, John Spalding, and Sidney Rigdon. Letters for Solomon Spalding are dated 30 April and 31 October 1813 and 30 June 1816, and for John and Solomon Spalding on 31 January 1815. Letters for Sidney Rigdon were dated 30 June 1816 and 31 August and 31 October 1818. Letters so dated were listed as having been unclaimed for at least thirty days at the Pittsburgh post office. This evidence gives partial support for Eichbaum's claim to have seen both Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding in the Pittsburgh post office during the period from 1811 to 1816, showing that Rigdon likely did visit the post office in Pittsburgh on occasion to retrieve his mail during the same time that Spalding did the same thing. (Matthew Roper, The Mythical "Manuscript Found", FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 108-9.)

I think Roper is being more than generous here. The one piece of relevant corroborating evidence is a record of an unclaimed letter in Pittsburg, addressed to Rigdon, and dated the end of June of the very year that Spalding died in Amity, PA. Who knows if or when Rigdon may have eventual retrieved the letter? But given the fact that he had charge over his father's farm (some 10-15 miles outside of Pittsburg) ever since the time that his father had passed away 6 years earlier, and the summer and fall month's would likely have been devoted to raising and harvesting crops (perhaps that is why the letter was unclaimed for more than 30 days in June), it is likely that he may not have travelled to Pittsburg to retrieve the letter until later that fall; and given the fact (as Dale reports on his Spalding Biography page) that Spalding was residing at the time in Amity, PA (I am not sure how far that township was from Pittsburg or the Rigdon residence), and he had contracted dysentery (late in the summer) and died (in October), and his wife and daughter shipped of to New York along with the trunk containing the Spalding manuscript(s) and writings; there is reason to doubt the probative value of the unclaimed letter record as corroborative. In other words, there is good reason to conclude that Rigdon likely never bumped into Spalding at the Pittsburg post office during that year, let alone somehow having placed Spalding's manuscript into his hands.

Moreover, even if one accepts your two-MS theory, why should we assume the MS at the printing office was the hypothesized proto-BOM MS and not the Oberlin MS, or a version of it? Certainly, you must know that this new evidence only becomes significant if one allows a lot of other "ifs".

No, the only way it doesn't become significant is if the testimony of the Conneaut witnesses and others are impeached, and contrary to Brodie and those who would hide behind her book, that is simply not the case.

I beg to differ. I think the Conneaut witnesses, while perhaps good and fine people, who likely made their statements in good faith and to the best of their recollection, their statements have been called into serious question through my investigations HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

...But, as I said, even if these links come apart, major segments of the chain remain -- and those segments can probably be re-assembled into a stronger chain of evidence, once the weak links are strengthened....
Dale

I view it more like a three-legged stool, with the legs consisting of: 1) Rigdon/Spalding connection; 2) Rigdon/Smith connection; and 3) the manuscript(s). If any of these thre legs collapse, the entire theory collapses, regardless of how much evidentiary wood and glue may have gone into constructing the Spalding stool.

From what I have gathered from my own research, at least the first two legs have thoroughly collapsed, and the third leg is teetering quite precariously. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-